Further Information

Credits

Comments (41)

robarc :

08 Dec 2012 9:37:47am

GeraldineWe all love you but that little throw away line about the Romans shows a mis-understanding about them and Christianity

Alain de Boton was saying how radical was the Christian idea that you could be a King and yet because you were not a good person (my reading: because you did not treat others as you would want to be treated if you were in their position) then you could go to hell

You chipped in ". . . a bit different to the Romans"

And Alain agreed!

You've only got to read what the Romans wrote to understand that they were a society ready primed to accept Christianity because the values that they shared as a culture were trending that way.

At school I had to translate "Caesar's Gallic Wars" and later I read it in English and was mightily impressed by Caesar and by the Romans and their honourable approach to dealing with each other and with others

Julius Caesar tried to avoid battle if he could but did not shrink from it. He would rather negotiate than fight. He would pay the locals for provisions. He was as good as his word and his word was his bond. The enemy and his men knew it as something they could rely upon. His treatment of the defeated enemy almost encouraged defections from the other side. He didn't take reprisals generally. He let the defeated soldiers go back to their farms on promise of not causing him further trouble. He had a practical approach to conquest which verged upon the Christian in seeking to avoid violence if it was possible to avoid

The Roman army was necessary to trade as he explained to a German chieftan who was raiding across the Rhine. Caesar sent a message to the chief saying that he Caesar had promised protection to the tribe that the chief had raided and that he Caesar could not tolerate further trouble

The chief warned Caesar that he had better be careful about who he threatened because the chief had not slept under a roof for 14 years (the inference intended to be drawn was that he was no pushover). Caesar was forced to cross the Rhine with his army and this involved building a very long and strong bridge. He punished the tribe and then demolished the bridge

The Roman presence in Britain was a benign attempt to establish peace so that everyone could trade and enjoy the resulting prosperity. This was what Hadrian’s wall symbolised. “Our idea of peace as the way of the future is like pearls before swine to you Scots so if you don’t bother us then we won’t bother you”

Jesus’ main message was ‘Treat others . . “ This was not so much morality as a practical way to live in community. Equity assures loyalty and peace both of which make the perfect environment for business and trade which assures prosperity; all of which assures strength. Very practical, almost Roman

David Arthur :

08 Dec 2012 10:24:25am

Robarc makes a good point about Julius Caesar's ethical behaviour; however, perhaps Geraldine's 'throwaway line' was intended as a reflection on the decline of the next couple of centuries of Roman emperors into despotism.

Indeed, one is reminded of Lord Acton's throwaway line, accompanied by images of such despots as the Stuarts following James I.

Responding to Alain de Boton's remark about the Christian idea that you could be a King and yet because you were not a good person then you could go to hell, my understanding is that rulers being subject to post mortem admonishment is not an exclusively Christian idea (I don't know that other religions developed concepts of hell as did Christianity). Judaism could be critical of bad rulers, and all persons, ruler and ruled alike, were encouraged to adopt Buddhist precepts.

paul leonard hill :

08 Dec 2012 7:23:54pm

As far as I know the Romans practiced crucifixion as a slightly less than benign form of punishment right up to the time of Jesus' execution. The Catholic church then replaced crucifixion with burning at the stake for the horrendous crime of heresy.

A Monotheist :

09 Dec 2012 2:30:02pm

Hello robarc:

I think you should also mentioned the official Roman policy containment which was also upheld by Caesar. The Roman once in every few years would cross the Rine river in pursuit of the so called berber, destroy their huts, kill many of their men, and enslave many others including the wemoen and childern; all that to prevent the berber communities becom strong and pose a threat to the Roamns.

Dr Gideon Polya :

08 Dec 2012 12:56:28pm

An entertaining and insightful interview that nevertheless missed the fundamental point of the need for a societal and indeed global moral contract that maximizes human well-being, happiness and dignity.

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant tussled with the problem of development from first principles of a morality from the perspective of an educated, 18th century Enlightenment man. In the 1970s Professor Richard Dawkins in his seminal book "The Selfish Gene" explored the evolution of altruism through genes (DNA) and socially transmitted ideas (memes). Melbourne philosopher Professor Brian Ellis (Melbourne and La Trobe Universities) has just published an important new book entitled "Social Humanism. A New Metaphysics" (Google "Review social humanism").

Professor Ellis rejects the contemporary neoliberalism that maximizes freedom for the smart and disadvantaged to exploit the less smart and disadvantaged who would theoretically benefit from a smart meritocracy through a "trickle down" mechanism. Ellis has developed a social humanism alternative to the current neoliberalism that involves an evolving social idealism (as exemplified by European welfare states) that maximizes human opportunity and dignity. Unfortunately neoliberalism is firmly entrenched in the Western democracies that have becomes what Ellis calls Corporatocracies - sensible people must attempt to force a reversion to democracy before it is too late (already 5 million people die annually from climate change and carbon burning with 100 million predicted to die thus by 2030 due to neoliberalism-driven climate inaction; Google "Climate Genocide" and "Are we doomed?").

Dr Gideon Polya :

Kate :

08 Dec 2012 2:09:17pm

People make so much of a fuss about dying. So what if lots of people die from whatever? We all have to go sooner or later and does it really matter if there were no humans left on the Earth anyway. I mean, if there's nothing there then there's nothing to worry about surely?

RobW :

08 Dec 2012 10:20:24pm

" So what if lots of people die from whatever"

I can't prove it, but I would suggest a fear of death is deeply ingrained in our psyche. If humans didn't fear death or run away from danger we probably never would have evolved much beyond being a meal for other animals.

More broadly if we didn't place some value on human life (ours and others) then I suspect human interactions would be extremely brutal and a stable society very much impossible. I mean our behaviour, laws, institutions etc reflect what we value, so I would hate to think what the world would be like if we didn't value human life.

"..does matter if there were no humans left on the Earth anyway"

No, but we are here and I rather not have to kill others or be killed because we place no value on human life.

Mike McDermott :

08 Dec 2012 1:10:46pm

On page 290 of Walter Russell Mead’s book God and Gold, it is said that “the deepest need of human beings is to have their humanity fulfilled by being recognised as equals by other free women and men. History is the long process through which humanity, impelled by this hunger for recognition, slowly and painfully builds a society in which a new kind of equality is possible”.

That ties in nicely with what Alain de Botton was saying. Once I used to think that this was my unique insight, which I made about 40 years ago now, but in fact it goes back at least to Hegel; the above quote is Mead’s interpretation of Hegel’s view of history.

Mead would also agree with Alain de Botton’s suggested solution of a wide range of identity construction and affirmation opportunities, rather than the dreary mechanistic monocultures of sporting prowess for boys, and visual attractiveness for girls. I could support this by several quotes, but choose one where he avers that “through change we encounter the transcendent and divine” (p. 409) and that American identity construction “ultimately reflects a quest for meaning, not a quest for comfort and wealth. And unlike Hegelian history, this quest has no foreseeable ending point because the quest itself is a permanent feature of human nature” (p.410).

Given all that, I have a suggestion which - like Monty Python’s Anne Elk - I once again claim as mine as I have come to it independently, but which may well not be. Perhaps the most practicable way to cure this sociophagic (a word I think I just invented then, but may not have) wealth distribution is to place a limit on how much any one person could inherit in a lifetime? For example, say the limit is set at 20 times the annual GDP per capita in a society, and the GDP of a society is $50,000, then the limit is $1,000,000. Say John Doe’s parent dies and leaves him $500,000. That’s 10 points gone. Years later, Auntie Hilda dies and leaves John $600,000 at a time when the annual GDP per capita is $60,000. There go his other 10 points. The concomitant inheritance taxes to this idea can thereby be avoided by spreading wealth around. So the concomitant inheritance tax is a switch from inheritance tax on the deceased to a limit for the beneficiaries. This therefore assists them in their quest for meaning - via wealth accumulation if they wish, however futile that may be. The potential implications are massive.

As with any new idea there will be visceral opposition, which as Mead also points out is a necessary part of the development process, and the idea would have to be developed to swim, or it will sink. I would like to see it given an airing, though.

Mike McDermott :

09 Dec 2012 10:36:35am

Well, it turns out that my attempted neologism "sociophage" does have a definition at http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sociophage (although the neighbouring "sociphage" and "sociaphage" are not yet defined.

So that was another annelkian moment of mine (annelkian from the abovementioned Anne Elk sketch, still accessible on You Tube, meaning a personal discovery taken as a universal discovery, esp trivial observations presented as profound).

However, I mean the term differently to that definition: sociophages as being society eaters - hoarders of unearned, undeserved wealth at the expense of the needy, resulting in wealth distribution being concentrated into very few hands at the top, the imbalance resulting in a danger of society's toppling over. Examples would include defrauders of the fiscus, the corrupt, the criminal, the deceivers, those who communalise the costs and privatise the profits, and so on. They would generally emerge from the category Csikszentmihalyi described in "The Evolving Self" as "predators and parasites".

Therefore, it is not an exclusively intra-economic term, but includes economic behaviour. It is also a word applied to an extreme of a spectrum; hence my submitting that a substantial amount should still be able to be inherited, but not so much as to be sociophagic.

I submit the word as being useful in the context set by Alain de Botton, and the suggestion that catalysed it being useful as well.

paul leonard hill :

08 Dec 2012 7:28:35pm

HOW I WAS BANKRUPTED BY THINKING HONESTY MADE SENSE. Part 1I know precisely who to blame for my demise. Just about everyone.

It would be fine if big wealth was acquired honestly, producing something tangible and useful. But it’s NOT. Most big wealth is acquired by financial speculation which depends on very low or NO capital gains tax, as in Australia up until 1987, but which didn’t go far enough. Up until the Frazer govt come to power in ‘75 greenmailing was going berserk, bottom of the harbor, round robin etc., tax avoidance schemes were flourishing, all this relying on there being no capital gains tax. It continued under Frazer, leader of a conservative pro business?? Govt So tax revenue was falling through the floor..

However, instead of introducing a capital gains tax to stop the rampant speculation, Frazer abolished the 40% investment allowance over 2 years and abolished accelerated depreciation on plant and equipment, something which hit small business especially hard, especially those who’d planned their finances based on the earlier tax regime. For me this was fatal as I was the only abalone diver declaring all his income and was buying a lot of plant to do my own maintenance, build inventions etc. I assumed, based on what conditions were like up to mid ‘75 that you were rewarded, tax wise, if you built a capital base, ie plant and equipment, the MEANS OF PRODUCTION.

So don’t tax the means of production, tax the production itself, in my case, my abalone catch. A good workshop meant I could maintain my boat, compressors etc. better, thus improve my catch, as well as build things associated with self sufficiency as I believe then that a terminal stock exchange crash was coming up. Hey yeah, I thought, that’s capitalism, makes perfect sense. Then to my dismay the tax changes being implemented DIDN’T make sense So, as explained by my accountant I was caught in a tax trap.

In 1984 the new Hawke Govt. introduced sales tax on small tools, just the shot to put the last nail in my coffin Then on Easter Saturday April 1 1988 I was bankrupted after being put into jail a couple of days before for contempt of court for refusing to leave MY house I was packed raped by Australia, stripped bare of EVERYTHING. Even my car and tools of trade were sold. That is ILLEGAL as Aust bankruptcy law says you are able to keep those to kick back on with. They obviously didn’t want to kick anything except the bucket.

That was just the beginning of my Hell on earth and I almost committed suicide. That was the precise intention of the trustee and tax dept because I was writing booklets about what was happening to me and sending them all over the place, talking not just about the absurdities, but numerous illegalities, being committed by a number of Govt. departments involved in my demise. I was also predicting the collapse of the world economy based on the policies of deregulation, increased speculatio

paul hill :

08 Dec 2012 8:10:32pm

HOW I WAS BANKRUPTED FOR BEING HONEST Part 2

In the first raid on my house by the trustees, Cameron Bird Associates, all my printing equipment was seized, photocopier, desktop collator, offset presses, platemakers and my Mac computer. That shut me up. A couple of years after my bankruptcy the tax dept raided my accountant’s office and seized all my tax documents, cheque butts etc. and NEVER returned them. They were obviously looking for evidence of tax evasion to discredit me. They failed because I was NOT evading tax. The rest of the abalone divers had done everything possible to try to get me to to cheat on my fishing returns and were wiping out my fishing beds to try to force me.

The day of my bankruptcy Easter Saturday, April 1st 1988 I was in Pentridge, having been arrested for contempt of court a couple of days before, for repeatedly breaking back into MY house (and STILL my house). It was a pack rape, with close 'friends' turning up to clean me out, fist fight over my stuff and stuff being stolen. I was released from Pentridge STRIPPED bare and homeless. Even my wallet with just $20 in it was taken back to Melbourne by the trustee. I am supposed to just accept this as there is allegedly nothing I can do about it. Except for a lift home from Pentridge by a friend I received no help whatsoever, no offers of temporary accommodation, nothing.

A dissident is resented by friends and relatives for rocking the boat, drawing media attention to himself and thus inadvertently them, their illegalities, secret affairs etc. He is doing this for ulterior reasons, out of resentment for not receiving any help. Or he is making a martyr out of himself for perceived guilt over something. Anything and everything but the TRUTH, ie outrage at injustice.

Machiavelli said something like if you are honest, work hard and are innovative you are on the road to SUICIDE. Spot on!! This is how I learned my economics, with the help of the greatest economist on Earth, Kenneth Galbraith, a giant of a man. Read the ‘Crash of 1929’ and you’ll see precisely why we are in this mess today, only it's VASTLY worse.

A Monotheist :

"That's the zero sum myth underlying modern economics.The economy is NOT zero sum.It has net (energy and informational) input, which we can then waste or use wisely."

If by non-zero–sum, you mean "a situation in which the interacting parties' aggregate gains and losses are either less than or more than zero, then I think we should comsider two things:

first, the definition of wealth; and the mode of aquiring it in an industerilized economy and in an aggraian economy of 1400 years ago. Because, 1400 years ago, wealth would have generated through manual work.

Secondly, there is no such a thing as non-zero game. Just consider the current economic situation; the comparitaive adavantage is in tattered. What we are seeing is an economic and political shift; some countries have been benefited from movement of capital and labour while the otheres appear to be the loosers. We have seen how the European are begging countries such as Brazil, China etc to invest in Europe; but whatabout the social bloc. It used to be isolated from the rest of the world, it had a centralized economy; but it grew poorer and poorer until it could no longer sustain itself!

Ben Heslop :

I agree with 1) but its not in conflict with the concept of 'useful work' or 'exergy' being the product of society - regardless of how manual the processes.

Regarding 2) I'll use a simple example. You work in company producing widgets that has just had a new manager arrive. This person spends a lot of money/effort/energy/time in changing processes that end up less efficient than those he replaced. Aside from the debit of exergy in reforming, the company now also produces fewer widgets for the same amount of material and manhours. So the sum of the game is not zero but now negative.

Not only that, but employees frustrated by inefficient processes will be frustrated, and leave or fight with each other and their managers. So the 'sum' is further reduced.

So, an economy can be run well, or run badly. The lost 'exergy' does not automatically go to someone else. It is lost. Forever. This is why Europe's troubles are a net problem for the entire world, and China's success is a net boon (economically speaking - the environmental arguments are separate).

Please go to my website if you wish to engage further on Alain's thoughts. http://ceisys.com/ceisys-and-philosophy/

Anita S. :

12 Dec 2012 5:40:24pm

Alain speaks of the Christian virtue of being kind, however I feel that it is more of an ideal state than one pursued in actuality. I've been a witness to more judgmental , unkind and even cruel words and acts, coming from those professing religious conviction, than those of unbelievers or humanists. By way of example, the various political parties around the globe with a religious affiliation ,(say the Christian Democrats ), are on the right wing of the political spectrum. These are normally in the "unkind", punitive neoliberal set of political ideologies.I suggest that Alain views those brought up in the Christian tradition, more kindly than one who actually grew up in the thick of it. The talk was particularly insightful in relationship to the current acceptance of huge discrepancies in income and standard of living. Perhaps we should look to the Scandinavian countries for a better formula in distributing wealth.

paul leonard hill :

13 Dec 2012 2:07:13pm

WHISTLE BLOWER Part 1In 1970 I had a horrific boat accident outside Cape Nelson in Portland, Vic Aust. The boat sank at 4 pm and it was 3 hrs before I and my deckhand got, what we thought was, ashore. It wasn't as it was cut off by a very dangerous moat that was surging up and down and so we got into a hole in the rock to escape the worst of the surge by bracing ourselves when a wave broke over us. He died at 11.30 pm from hypothermia. I was picked up at 8 am by a cray boat and wound up in Portland hospital in a real mess. I blamed myself for the death as I was a backslidden Christian and believed his death was punishment by God for same. Thus I was treated for suicidal depression. A Sun journo turned up to do an interview with me. I decided to blow the whistle on the fact that no abalone divers, myself included, were carrying safety equipment on their boats as it was considered to just get in the road. (As it turned out in this case it would not have made any difference.)

My thinking was that his death could save many lives by using this publicity to highlight this very dangerous practice. I thought of a verse from the Bible, “Except a grain of wheat fall to the ground and die, it abideth alone, but if it die it bringeth forth much fruit”. That's it, pure and simple. No desire for revenge because NOBODY had looked for us that night, despite claims that there was a search party out at Cape Nelson. For me it was cathartic, a rebirth. However, what I also told the journo was that when the Marine Board inspector came to do an annual check on a boat the divers would scrape up enough safety gear to put on the boat, get it passed, then transfer the gear to another boat whilst the inspector went for lunch. He inspects that boat, knowing that it was the same set of gear, but as long as he was seen to be doing his job that's all that mattered.

When I got out of hospital about a fortnight after admission I headed for the boat ramp to see my diver mates getting ready to go to work, truly believing that they'd slap me on the back, all sympathetic like telling me what a horrific ordeal it must have been. Nope. As I walked down the ramp they all turned the backs on me. Eh, what?? Then one of the divers walked up the ramp and and yelled “You're a nice sort of b-----, dobbing your mates in.” I was poleaxed. “What do you mean, dobbing you in. I thought you'd be glad for me waking you up that we need safety equipment.” He replied angrily, “Bull S-- Now I've got to spend $100 dollars on a bilge pump”. “Oh how bloody dreadful”, I yelled. I turned a looked at the other divers and screamed at them. “You can all go and get stuffed” and stormed off. The start of my enlightenment!

paul leonard hill :

13 Dec 2012 2:20:16pm

WHISTLE BLOWER Part 24 ½ months later, once more outside Cape Nelson, when I couldn't start my outboard motor and a huge sea was building, pushed by an 85 mph gale coming in from the NW, the divers all took off and left me to die. My boat was wiped out by a monstrous wave with my deckie still in it. When I saw this wave starting to break, I jumped out yelling for him to jump. However he was frozen stiff with fear and was in the boat when it smashed into the cliff face. He died. There was NO coroners inquest. To come were THREE suicides of deckies who had worked for me, another death of yet another in a boat accident but not on my boat. Then there was the son of a famous Country and Western singer, a diver in this case, who hanged himself in the most bizarre circumstances in bush up above where my boat accident took place.

For years I have been trying to get a police inquiry in to these deaths. I have been told by 2 magistrates when in court for trespass in a National Park, the only place on Earth I can live because of the prejudice, that there will NEVER be an inquiry. I even had myself put into a Geelong psyche hospital thinking I could get some sort of inquiry set up in there. I was told that this was not the venue for such an inquiry. When I asked where was, they couldn't tell me and suggested I go find somewhere else to live. They even paid for a week's holiday in Queenscliff for me to get the feel of the idea. However I went back home as I knew that this was not a solution. I'd have to avoid people and NOT talk about my past. That is a perfect recipe to go mad with paranoia, and coming from shrinks?

42 years since the boat accidents, been chucked out of 9 places, had five lots of property stolen, bin twice, jail twice, once for contempt of court one for non payment of fines, one camp smashed up with my camping gear stolen by rangers and now back in the National Park where I have been by myself for 13 years waiting for this Hell on earth to end I go up to six weeks without seeing another human being yet I am TOTALLY non-violent.

SEVEN DEAD PEOPLE, YET I CANNOT GET A POLICE INQUIRY!!!! I'm NOT making all this up. THIS IS REAL RAW PREDJUDICE !!

Ben Heslop :

Graham Bell :

13 Dec 2012 4:42:04pm

Just a thought.

Whilst some people may desire to be loved and respected .... there are others who seek to AVOID the mirror-image of love and respect. That mirror-image of love and respect is being loathed, hated, despised, ostracized, neglected, slandered and misunderstood

One is positive and beneficial; the other is negative and harmful.

Think of single mothers (whether they are widowed, divorced, separated even after a long and stable relationship, those who have escaped with their lives from a violent relationship, those who became pregnant in a chance encounter).

Think of genuine refugees - those who are now unfairly lumped together with economic migrants, asylum seekers and fleeing soldiers from the losing side in a conflict.

Think of war veterans who are assumed to be murderously violent and as guilty as sin of all sorts of horrible atrocities simply because they have been in a war.

All of these types of people - and more - are probably much more interested in avoiding the immediate and more intense pain of unfair blame, condemnation and disgust than they are in the nice warm feelings that come from being cherished and admired.

paul hill :

Phil Martin :

14 Dec 2012 1:56:59pm

Thanks Geraldine for the interview with Alain de Botton. I agree with his proposal that envy and shame can arise more easily in a society where there is an expectation that social mobility is possible for all. I also agree that money and expensive things are generally avenues for gaining respect rather than primarily valued for themselves. How sad it is that as society expands materially and technologically, so too expands the disparity across society, and more particularly that we continue to classify people as "high" and "low" etc on the basis of certain criteria such as money, education etc. In this context it was refreshing to hear de Botton propose a range of criteria for success as his solution to the sense of inadequacy fuelled or at least enabled by meritocracy.Let me briefly propose some other ways of reducing the envy and sense of inadequacy of low self-esteem even within meritocratic societies.(1) Recognition of the inherent value of each human being. This should be encouraged towards humanity as a whole, but the sense of one's own inherent value is best produced from birth. While self-esteem has been defined as a sense of being lovable and capable, the sense of being lovable is by far the more necessary and essential ingredient in good healthy self-esteem. (Indeed de Botton seemed to concur.) This kind of deep sense of one's own worth is associated with the experience of love, and it does not involve comparison to others. (2) Gratitude for people's talents and atributes including personality traits, with the awareness that we cannot choose our most basic formative situations or genes. (3) Emphasis on communities rather than individuals. (4) Fostering humility as a value: The whole idea of seeking to be seen as better than others is inverted by many Christian saints including Saint Teresa of Avila who stated that hearing negative words spoken about oneself can be experienced emotionally as if the words were about somebody else. What a powerful protection against hurts to self-esteem such a humble outlook would bring! Believing that one is not better than others and not wishing to be considered so removes the bitterness, but it does not strangle the endeavours to achieve which are done for motives bigger than oneself and one's image. Stating that certain values would enhance a society is always easier than effecting the change however!Thanks for the chance to comment and for the stimulating discussions on Saturday Extra.Phil Martin

Graham Bell :

boris kostich :

14 Dec 2012 8:56:36pm

It is interesting that the arguments put forward by Mr Phil Martin and Allain de Botton all revolve around the good psychological traits and attributes as criteria of individual success, and symbols of true merit. Looking at meritocracy on these terms presents no danger to current business and political leadership. A much more provocative and challenging view of meritocracy is needed!

You don’t have to be an Einstein, or a philosopher, to see where the current idea of Merit under capitalism is faulty, breeding all sorts of false illusions among the common people.

The latest ABS Census figures on Australian managers, for example, reveal that 56.3 per cent do not possess a tertiary education on the level of Advanced TAFE diploma or above.

On the other hand, workers with tertiary education, holding an Advanced diploma, Bachelor’s degree, Graduate diploma or Post-Graduate degree are holding occupations such as Labourers, Machine operators or drivers, Sales workers, Personal and Community service workers, and tradesmen. When you exclude the tradesmen and technicians from the equation (who are still to be regarded as skilled workers) the percentage of highly educated Australians holding ONLY unskilled and semi-skilled jobs is still an extraordinary 45 per cent.

This speaks tons about how the idea of “merit” really works in Australian society.

To become a Manager, firstly you need a reasonable amount of inherited capital or property. Secondly, and directly dependent on the first, you need an Access to Credit or finance on easy terms. Thirdly, and directly dependent on the last two factors you need good, profitable, Social Connections. Fourthly, and perhaps underpinning all first three, you need “right Ethnic background”. And fourthly, and lastly, after all these preconditions are met you need a suitable amount of "right sort of human capital, ambition, and energy."

Under Australian conditions however, having ONLY a right amount of human capital, ambition, and energy can lead to jail as much as it can bring you close to success.

This is very well confirmed by the historical record of both successes and failures in this country.

Rose :

A Monotheist :

1- Human beings are not angels; they can ascend above the angels or descend bellow animalilty into Satan's realm; but they can't move on a linear line like the angels, or animals

2- The evolution of human beings started with the physical evolution, which has also led to the evolution of human mind; but it doesn't end up there for there must also be a moral or spiritual evolution as well. However, unlike the process of physical evolution which human species had no influence on it, the spiritual evolution requires active participation of people. Hence, they can choose to ascend above the angels or enter the realm of Satan; but they certainly cant stay in the kingdom animalia

Therefore, any social, political, philosophical, scientific and religious program which ignores human nature, or doesn't provide a real spiritual solution cannot come up with a viable solution to the problem.

People are not angels; they have rather evolved from animals. Therefore, don't spect them to behave good without undergoing an evolutionary spiritual transformation.

boris kostich :

A Monotheist :

16 Dec 2012 11:53:29am

Hello boris kostich:

I think we both know that both experiements, Socialism and Capitalism have failed; and we have to ask why?

Capitalism gives weight to meritocracy while socialism gives weight to communal corroboration and social goals. However, they both have failed; not because the social goals are not important or because individual merits are meaningless but because the individual merits and the social goals are dtermined by people.

Once, I had the previlige of being part of a community which somehow was intended to be a miniature of an ideal society. The community was mostly of a people with similar ideological background. They were by far ahead of ordinary people intelectually and morally. However, as time went by, the community started developing several fundamental problems including a disproportionate large number of male over female, and a sever shortage of food. Anyway, after a considerable time, the crack started appearing in the community. This crack started from the weaker link in the community. Those of us with weaker moral and spiritual charactors started corrupting faster and affecting the community.

It is also important to realize that, you can not cherish spirituality or morality without having the right social medium for it. However, the question is: how you are going to strike the right balance between the meritocracy and communal corroboration and the social goals. Don't forget that, ultimately, it is people who define the goals and decide to corroborate.

An ideal society would one where every individual member takes responssibility based on his or her merit but the social well being paramounts over the individual merits.

Now, let me to give an example of the policies which may help achieving such a society. Once, the Prophet Muhammad said: "Any agricultural produce belongs to the one who has produced it even if the land used for cultivation as been illegally obtained". In another word, if a land for some legitimate reason has been left unused and a person started cultivating it illegally, still the produce belong to one who laboured cultivating it.

He also said: A land belong to one who put it to use (cultivation). In another word, one cannot ammass a lan and claim its ownership without putting it to use.

Now, we can apply similar principle to the modern mode of productions.

boris kostich :

But merit you talk about are NOT determined by "the people". Merit is defined by a top-down relationship.Merit in a hierarchical class society like Australia or USA is determined by the ruling class.

The young people in a class society are urged to improve their education to acquire merit and then get jobs they deserve.

The politicians and business leaders all emphasize education as vital, especially when they talk to disadvantaged youth and working class migrants.

They lie and cheat when they say that capitalist society can provide equal opportunity for most people and guarantee them human rights.

The reality is starkly different than what the pro-capitalist dogmatists in business and media try to project.

I have shown you with the official statistics what the highly educated people are forced to do in Australia. The fact that more than half of Australian managers don't have professional education of any kind! They have been recruited on the basis of their class, race, and ethnicity.

Any human capital, or "merit" they may possess or develop is of very special kind, which has nothing to do with the productive capacity of man, willing to do production work. It has nothing to do with a healthy orientation towards art or science.

boris kostich :

A Monotheist :

17 Dec 2012 6:10:03pm

Hello boris kostich:

God is real' not a fiction!! and as the Quran says Allah is not unmindfull of the Creation! It also says "Allah knows where and when carry out His mission". Just consider this, all the universal prophets, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad have been extremely successful in carrying out their mission despite all the odds!!!!!